JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. These five appeals involving similar controversy are being decided by this common order. 3. These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the learned lower appellate court of Additional District Judge, No.2, Jodhpur whereby the objections filed by the appellants under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC was dismissed by the appellate court upholding the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 31.05.2008; and thus in an eviction decree passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent-Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, Jaipur in relation to suit property situated at "Takiya Chand Shah", M.G.H. Road, Jodhpur, the courts below have held that the appellants are bound by the decree, which had become final in favour of the respondent-plaintiff up to Apex Court of the country and, therefore, they are liable to hand-over the vacant possession of the premises/shops in question to the respondent-plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants (Cross-Objectors), Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh, submitted that provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 read with Rule 101 CPC have not been appreciated by the learned courts below, and even though the appellants (Cross-Objectors) had filed two affidavits in support of their objection that they were in possession of the suit premises independently, however, such evidence has not even been referred much-less discussed and appreciated by the learned courts below. He, therefore, prayed for remand of the case to the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Cross-Objectors, appellants herein, had filed affidavits of Mr. Kailash Nath Mathur and Mr. Dharam Narayan Mangal, and from the side of respondent-plaintiff, affidavit of Secretary of the "Toliyat Committee", namely, Mohd. Ateek on behalf of respondent-decree holder Wakf Board, was filed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder (plaintiff) urged that the decree is final and binding on the present appellants/cross-objectors and since the appellants failed to establish their right, title or interest on the suit premises independently, therefore, they were bound by the decree and liable to hand-over the vacant possession of the suit property to the decree holder. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties at some length and upon perusal of the impugned orders, it is noticed that even though the learned Executing Court in its order impugned dated 31.05.2008 has referred to the affidavits, however, the details thereof are not found in the impugned orders and no reason has been given by the learned lower appellate court to reject such evidence in form of evidence. The lower appellate court in its impugned order dated 30.09.2009 has not referred to any such affidavits. Therefore, it appears that the learned courts below have failed to discuss the evidence, which was brought before them in proper perspective. In the opinion of this Court, the matter deserves to be sent back to the learned first appellate court to avoid any further delay in the matter. 7. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the first appellate court dated 30.09.2009 is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the said appellate court for decision afresh on merits and decide objections under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC in accordance with law. The learned appellate court may decide such appeals again discussing the affidavits filed by the respective parties; and if necessary, after allowing opportunity of cross-examination to the other side. In view of long drawn battle between the parties, the learned appellate court is requested to decide said appeals again upon this remand, within a period of three months from today.Appeals Allowed. *******